This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

View Poll Results: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Blah, blah, blah, whatever. Maybe I misread your post.

"Maybe???" You're not sure?

"Do you have anything to argue other than decade old talking points?" ~ Sheik Yerbuti

"Decades old? What the hell are you talking about? We are talking about the Iraq war, which is only ONE decade. My suggestion to you is to read more carefully. ...... I can read. Can you? You did say "decades old talking points." Don't be dishonest. It just makes you look like an ass." ~ ChrisL

Originally Posted by ChrisL

This is totally irrelevant and off point.

No, actually, it's very relevant. It demonstrates you can't understand what you read. What chance do you have insisting the articles you post mean what you think they do when you can't even understand that when I said "decade old talking points," I meant talking points from one decade ago? Or like you claiming that Hussein being dishonest about the WMD he had in his possession it the same thing as Hussein not letting the inspectors in.

So, yes, it's quite relevant, as well as informative.

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Do YOU think the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein? If not, please list his contributions that made him a valuable member of society and the world, besides "keeping the Iraqis in line" because that would really only be a benefit depending upon how you view the particular situation.

Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

Originally Posted by Jack Hays

The clear context of our earlier exchange was the sixteen words.

You're confused. You made claims that are simply not true. And by doing so, you undermine your own claims of ownership to classified intelligence that no one else here is aware of. These are well known facts which have been corroborated by multiple sources. They're no longer classified and they have been studied inside and out. We know what the forged documents were about, we know when the CIA received them, we know what they did with them, we know what intelligence agencies thought of them and we know when it became known they were forgeries. There is nothing you know that the rest of the world doesn't know in terms of those documents. It's a fact that the first of the forged documents made it into CIA hands in 2001. It's a fact that the CIA drafted reports based on them. It's a fact that the CIA thought they were credible and it's a fact that the INR had doubts to their authenticity. It's fact that in 2003, the IAEA conclusively determined they were forgeries.

Despite your claims to the contrary, reports were written up based on the forgeries because it was suspected by the CIA that the could have been authentic. So authentic, that they sent Wilson in 2002 to investigate the possibility of Niger selling of Uranium to Iraq after vice-president Cheney had questions they couldn't readily answer after reading a DIA report. The intelligence in that report was based on the forged documents. This is all public information. The fact that it's embarrassing to our government and intelligence agencies lends to the credibility of the reporting that we're now aware of.

Originally Posted by Jack Hays

From Wilson's 6 July 2003 NYT article: "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

By the time Wilson published that piece in the NY Times, the story of the forged documents was 4 months old. You are flat out lying when you blame Wilson for injecting those documents into the international discussion of them. The IAEA determined in March of 2003, 4 months earlier, that the documents were forgeries.

This is just more evidence that you have no idea what you're blabbering about, you have nothing but rightwing talking points about blaming Wilson, and you again undermine your own BS claim of clandestine information that no one else here is privy to.

Originally Posted by Jack Hays

The reason the report was never used to prep the SOTU was because it was in question, as Wilson noted. That's also why GWB only referred to Saddam attempting to procure uranium, drawing back from the claim that a deal had been made.

I hate to sound reduntant, but I have little choice when you once again undermine your own claims to superior knowledge by demonstrating that you have no friggin' clue to what you're talking about.

... the forged documents never indicated that a deal was made. The documents ranged from stating that they could deliver the goods and could ensure their transport, to indicating Iraq's interest in acquiring yellowcake from Niger.

Originally Posted by Jack Hays

The National Security Advisor erred.

It wasn't just the National Security advisor. It was also the Director of the CIA. It was also a top aide to Condoleeza Rice. It was also the White House. They all admitted that including those words in the SOTU address was a mistake in light of the IAEA's determination that the documents which formed the basis of the opinion that Hussein sought yellowcake, were forgeries. They had even had similar sentiments removed from earlier speeches but neglected to remove them from the SOTU address. If what you were saying was true, and it's clearly not, the White House would have been defending the 16 words, not confessing they was insufficient intelligence to confirm them.

Plus there was the IAEA stating that those documents were centeral to the case that the U.S. and Britain were making towards Hussein seeking nuclear materials. You can't make this xit up.

You can spout all the bullxit you want -- you cannot alter history. No matter how hard you try.

Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

Originally Posted by Jack Hays

The clear context of our earlier exchange was the sixteen words.

From Wilson's 6 July 2003 NYT article: "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

The reason the report was never used to prep the SOTU was because it was in question, as Wilson noted. That's also why GWB only referred to Saddam attempting to procure uranium, drawing back from the claim that a deal had been made.

The National Security Advisor erred.

Um, I don't think she erred at all, here is what she said on national television:

*"The president quoted a British paper. We did not know at the time--no one knew at the time, in our circles-maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course, it was information that was mistaken. But the-it was a relatively small part of the case about nuclear weapons and nuclear reconstitution." Condoleeza Rice, NBC Meet the Press, 6/8/03

You can also see her saying it at the 1:40 mark in the following video:

Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

Originally Posted by Sheik Yerbuti

[COLOR="#0000FF"]We know what the forged documents were about, we know when the CIA received them, we know what they did with them, we know what intelligence agencies thought of them and we know when it became known they were forgeries. There is nothing you know that the rest of the world doesn't know in terms of those documents. It's a fact that the first of the forged documents made it into CIA hands in 2001. It's a fact that the CIA drafted reports based on them. It's a fact that the CIA thought they were credible and it's a fact that the INR had doubts to their authenticity. It's fact that in 2003, the IAEA conclusively determined they were forgeries.

Despite your claims to the contrary, reports were written up based on the forgeries because it was suspected by the CIA that the could have been authentic.

You are just close enough to the truth to be wrong. Reports based on the forgeries came into CIA hands in 2001, but the documents themselves were only obtained much later. Once in hand, they immediately aroused skepticism.

"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

Originally Posted by pbrauer

Um, I don't think she erred at all, here is what she said on national television:

*"The president quoted a British paper. We did not know at the time--no one knew at the time, in our circles-maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course, it was information that was mistaken. But the-it was a relatively small part of the case about nuclear weapons and nuclear reconstitution." Condoleeza Rice, NBC Meet the Press, 6/8/03

The British case did not depend on the forgeries.

"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

Re: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

Originally Posted by Jack Hays

The British position to this day is that their judgment did not depend on the forgeries.

Why would they admit to being so stupid? Besides Wilson is sent to Niger to investigate a sale of uranium to Iraq by Niger. What iS Wilson to think when he hears her on the tube June 6, 2003? His NYT op-Ed WAS July 6, 2003.